imself　looking　with　　more　interest　and　confidence　on　the　unpretending　Latin　and　Italian　　annalists；　like　those　of　Bologna　and　Ferrara；　who　remained　true　to　the　　old　style；　and　still　more　grateful　does　he　feel　to　the　best　of　the　　genuine　chroniclers　who　wrote　in　Italianto　Marino　Sanuto；　Corio；　and　　Infessurawho　were　followed　at　the　beginning　of　the　sixteenth　century　　by　that　new　and　illustrious　band　of　great　national　historians　who　wrote　　in　their　mother　tongue。
  Contemporary　history；　no　doubt；　was　written　far　better　in　the　language　　of　the　day　than　when　forced　into　Latin。　Whether　Italian　was　also　more　　suitable　for　the　narrative　of　events　long　past；　or　for　historical　　research；　is　a　question　which　admits；　for　that　period；　of　more　answers　　than　one。　Latin　was；　at　that　time；　the　'Lingua　franca'　of　instructed　　people；　not　only　in　an　international　sense；　as　a　means　of　intercourse　　between　Englishmen；　Frenchmen；　and　Italians；　but　also　in　an　　interprovincial　sense。　The　Lombard；　the　Venetian；　and　the　Neapolitan　　modes　of　writing；　though　long　modelled　on　the　Tuscan；　and　bearing　but　　slight　traces　of　the　dialect　were　still　not　recognized　by　the　　Florentines。　This　was　of　less　consequence　in　local　contemporary　　histories；　which　were　sure　of　readers　at　the　place　where　they　were　　written；　than　in　the　narratives　of　the　past；　for　which　a　larger　public　　was　desired。　In　these　the　local　interests　of　the　people　had　to　be　　sacrificed　to　the　general　interests　of　the　learned。　How　far　would　the　　influence　of　a　man　like　Biondo　of　Forli　have　reached　if　he　had　written　　his　great　monuments　of　learning　in　the　dialect　of　the　Romagna？　They　　would　have　assuredly　sunk　into　neglect；　if　only　through　the　contempt　of　　the　Florentines；　while　written　in　Latin　they　exercised　the　profoundest　　influence　on　the　whole　European　world　of　learning。　And　even　the　　Florentines　in　the　fifteenth　century　wrote　Latin；　not　only　because　　their　minds　were　imbued　with　humanism；　but　in　order　to　be　more　widely　　read。
  Finally；　there　exist　certain　Latin　essays　in　contemporary　history　which　　stand　on　a　level　with　the　best　Italian　works　of　the　kind。　When　the　　continuous　narrative　after　the　manner　of　Livythat　Procrustean　bed　of　　so　many　writers　is　abandoned；　the　change　is　marvelous。　The　same　Platina　　and　Giovio；　whose　great　histories　we　only　read　because　and　so　far　as　we　　must；　suddenly　come　forward　as　masters　in　the　biographical　style。　We　　have　already　spoken　of　Tristano　Caracciolo；　of　the　biographical　works　　of　Fazio　and　of　the　Venetian　topography　of　Sabellico；　and　others　will　　be　mentioned　in　the　sequel。
  The　Latin　treatises　on　past　history　were　naturally　concerned；　for　the　　most　part；　with　classical　antiquity。　What　we　are　most　surprised　to　find　　among　these　humanists　are　some　considerable　works　on　the　history　of　the　　Middle　Ages。　The　first　of　this　kind　was　the　chronicle　of　Matteo　　Palmieri　（449…1449）；　beginning　where　Prosper　Accedence　ceases。　On　　opening　the　'Decades'　of　Biondo　of　Forli；　we　are　surprised　to　find　a　　universal　history；　'ab　inclinatione　Romanorum　imperii；'　as　in　Gibbon；　　full　of　original　studies　on　the　authors　of　each　century；　and　occupied；　　through　the　first　300　folio　pages；　with　early　mediaeval　history　down　to　　the　death　of　Frederick　II。　And　this　when　in　Northern　countries　nothing　　more　was　current　than　chronicles　of　the　popes　and　emperors；　and　the　　'Fasciculus　temporum。'　We　cannot　here　stay　to　show　what　writings　Biondo　　made　use　of；　and　where　he　found　his　materials；　though　this　justice　will　　some　day　be　done　to　him　by　the　historians　of　literature。　This　book　　alone　would　entitle　us　to　say　that　it　was　the　study　of　antiquity　which　　made　the　study　of　the　Middle　Ages　possible；　by　first　training　the　mind　　to　habits　of　impartial　historical　criticism。　To　this　must　be　added；　　that　the　Middle　Ages　were　now　over　for　Italy；　and　that　the　Italian　mind　　could　the　better　appreciate　them；　because　it　stood　outside　them。　It　　cannot；　nevertheless；　be　said　that　it　at　once　judged　them　fairly；　let　　alone　with　piety。　In　the　arts　a　strong　prejudice　established　itself　　against　all　that　those　centuries　had　created；　and　the　humanists　date　　the　new　era　from　the　time　of　their　own　appearance。　'I　begin；'　says　　Boccaccio；　'to　hope　and　believe　that　God　has　had　mercy　on　the　Italian　　name；　since　I　see　that　His　infinite　goodness　puts　souls　into　the　　breasts　of　the　Italians　like　those　of　the　ancients　souls　which　seek　　fame　by　other　means　than　robbery　and　violence；　but　rather　on　the　path　　of　poetry；　which　makes　men　immortal。'　But　this　narrow　and　unjust　temper　　did　not　preclude　investigation　in　the　minds　of　the　more　gifted　men；　at　　a　time；　too；　when　elsewhere　in　Europe　any　such　investigation　would　have　　been　out　of　the　question。　A　historical　criticism　of　the　Middle　Ages　was　　practicable；　just　because　the　rational　treatment　of　all　subjects　by　the　　humanists　had　trained　the　historical　spirit。　In　the　fifteenth　century　　this　spirit　had　so　far　penetrated　the　history　even　of　the　individual　　cities　of　Italy　that　the　stupid　fairy　tales　about　the　origin　of　　Florence；　Venice；　and　Milan　vanished；　while　at　the　same　time；　and　long　　after；　the　chronicles　of　the　North　were　stuffed　with　this　fantastic　　rubbish；　destitute　for　the　most　part　of　all　poetical　value；　and　　invented　as　late　as　the　fourteenth　century。
  The　close　connection　between　local　history　and　the　sentiment　of　glory　　has　already　been　touched　on　in　reference　to　Florence。　Venice　would　not　　be　behindhand。　Just　as　a　great　rhetorical　triumph　of　the　Florentines　　would　cause　a　Venetian　embassy　to　write　home　posthaste　for　an　orator　to　　be　sent　after　them；　so　too　the　Venetians　felt　the　need　of　a　history　　which　would　bear　comparison　with　those　of　Leonardo　Aretino　and　Poggio。　　And　it　was　to　satisfy　this　feeling　that；　in　the　fifteenth　century；　the　　'Decades'　of　Sabellico　appeared；　and　in　the　sixteenth　the　'Historia　　rerum　Venetarum'　of　Pietro　Bembo；　both　written　at　the　express　charge　of　　the　republic；　the　latter　a　continuation　of　the　former。
  The　great　Florentine　historians　at　the　beginning　of　the　sixteenth　　century　were　men　of　a　wholly　different　kind　from　the　Latinists　Bembo　　and　Giovio。　They　wrote　Italian；　not　only　because　they　could　not　vie　　with　the　Ciceronian　elegance　of　the　philologists；　but　because；　like　　Machiavelli；　they　could　only　record　in　a　living　tongue　the　living　　results　of　their　own　immediate　observations　and　we　may　add　in　the　case　　of　Machiavelli；　of　his　observation　of　the　pastand　because；　as　in　the　　case　of　Guicciardini；　Varchi；　and　many　others；　what　they　most　desired　　was；　that　their　view　of　the　course　of　events　should　have　as　wide　and　　deep　a　practical　effect　as　possible。　Even　when　they　only　write　for　a　　few　friends；　like　Francesco　Vettori；　they　feel　an　inward　need　to　utter　　their　testimony　on　men　and　events；　and　to　explain　and　justify　their　　share　in　the　latter。
  And　yet；　with　all　that　is　characteristic　in　their　language　and　style；　　they　were　powerfully　affected　by　antiquity；　and；　without　its　influence；　　would　be　inconceivable。　They　were　not　humanists；　but　they　had　passed　　through　the　school　of　humanism　and　have　in　them　more　of　the　spirit　of　　the　ancient　historians　than　most　of　the　imitators　of　Livy。　Like　the　　ancients；　they　were　citizens　who　wrote　for　citizens。
  Antiquity　as　the　Common　Source
  We　cannot　attempt　to　trace　the　influence　of　humanism　in　the　special　　sciences。　Each　has　its　own　history；　in　which　the　Italian　investigators　　of　this　period；　chiefly　through　their　rediscovery　of　the　results　　attained　by　antiquity；　mark　a　new　epoch；　with　which　the　modern　period　　of　the　science　in　question　begins　with　more　or　less　distinctness。　With　　regard　to　philosophy；　too；　we　must　refer　the　reader　to　the　special　　historical　works　on　the　subject。　The　influence　of　the　old　philosophers　　on　Italian　culture　will　appear　at　times　immense；　at　times　　inconsiderable；　the　former；　when　we　consider　how　the　doctrines　of　　Aristotle；　chiefly　drawn　from　the　Ethics　and　Politicsboth　widely　　diffused　at　an　early　periodbecame　the　common　property　of　educated　　Italians；　and　how　the　whole　method　of　abstract　thought　was　governed　by　　him；　the　latter；　when　we　remember　how　slight　was　the　dogmatic　influence　　of　the　old　philosophies；　and　even　of　the　enthusiastic　Florentine　　Platonists；　on　the　spirit　of　the　people　at　large。　What　looks　like　such　　an　influence　is　generally　no　more　than　a　consequence　of　the　new　culture　　in　general；　and　of　the　special　growth　and　development　of　the　Italian　　mind。　When　we　come　to　speak　of　religion；　we　shall　have　more　to　say　on　　this　head。　But　in　by　far　the　greater　number　of　cases；　we　have　to　do；　　not　with　the　general　culture　of　the　people　with　the　utterances　of　　individuals　or　of　learned　circles；　and　here；　too；　a　distinction　must　be　　drawn　between　the　true　assimilation　of　ancient　doctrines　and　　fashionable　make…believe。　For　with　many；　antiquity　was　only　a　fashion；　　even　among　very　learned　people。
  Nevertheless；　all　that　looks　like　affectation　to　our　age；　need　not　then　　have　actually　been　so。　The　giving　of　Greek　and　Latin　names　to　children；　　for　example；　is　better　and　more　respectable　than　the　present　practice　　of　taking　them；　especially　the　female　names；　from　novels。　When　the　　enthusiasm　for　the　ancient　world　was　greater　than　for　the　saints；　it　　was　simple